“SHORT & SIMPLE”

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 July 1938, Page 8

“SHORT & SIMPLE”

HAUGWITZ=REVENTLOW CASE AT BOW STREET DOES COUNTESS GO IN BODILY FEAR? PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR A WEEK. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Copyright. (Recd This Dfty, 9.5 a.m.)

LONDON. July 6. Countess Haugwitz Reventlow, wearing a black costume and a magnificent grey fur, brought several fashionably dressed women and a male escort to Bow Street.Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., in opening the case, said his client was anxious to avoid raising matrimonial disputes, the object of the proceedings simply being to obtain a surety that defendant would not execute violence to his wife. The parties had decided that family life was impossible and had discussed separation on June 2 with a solicitor, Mr Mitchell. Later, however, the Count changed his views and was not anxious for a separation. Mr Mitchell would state that the Count threatened on June 18, not only to shoot others, but himself and sometimes burst into tears. He sometimes made, large financial claims as a condition of leaving his wife. Sir Patrick Hastings added that the Count had a violent, ungovernable temper and was most emotional. Mr Mitchell, giving evidence of an interview which took place on June 18, said the Count said: “My. terms are the child and a fantastic sum.”

The Count referred to his wife in obscene terms and said: “I am going to give her three years of hell with headlines, but if I blew out my own brains everyone would know Barbara had driven me to it.’ Cross-examined, Mr Mitchell stated that the Countess authorised him to pffer the Count £50,000, if he would agree to a divorce. The Count said it was an insult and laughable. The

Count mentioned £1,000,000 as the sum he demanded. Mr Mitchell added that he had decided to hurry to London because of talk about blackmail, in which the Count said: “A lot of money could be made out of it if it were properly handled.” On the following morning the Count said he no longer desired a reconciliation and was' going to London to take the child and exercise his right' of mastership of the house. Mr Mitchell added that the Count was disturbed because of a certain man.

Mr Mitchell denied that a warrant had been taken out with the object of keeping the Count out of England, but admitted that the Countess telephoned the Count in Paris, on June 30, saying she would withdraw the warrant upon the Count’s request.

Mr Mitchell said the Countess at first was prepared, to settle £250,000 for life on the Count, ’but later thought an outright gift of £50,000 would be better, but Mr Mitchell was authorised to go up to £lOO,OOO. The magistrate said the issue was short and simple—whether the Countess went in bodily fear. He adjourned the case until July 13.

A message from London on June 23 quoted the “Evening News” as understanding that as a result of an application at Bow Street, a warrant for the arrest of Count Haugwitz-Reventlow was issued, and that an application was also made on behalf of the Countess for their son to be made a ward in Chancery. Another message stated that Scotland Yard had posted guards at the Regents Park mansion of Count and Countess Haugwitz-Reventlow as a result of threats to kidnap their two-year-old son and heir. The Countess was formerly Miss Barbara Hutton, the Woolworth heiress.